The War in Iraq – 10 years, and not getting any younger.

Tuesday 9th April marked the 10 year anniversary of the day that U.S troops stormed into Baghdad and took control of the city, toppling Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. However for the majority of Iraqi’s, this is just another ordinary day in a country in which nothing much has changed. In the decade that has passed, citizens have gained a freedom of speech, however the country is still incredibly unstable – politically, economically and socially.

 

To mark the anniversary, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard made a speech to the Lowy Institute for National Policy, on Tuesday night, defending Australia’s involvement in the war in Iraq, his reasons for sending Australian troops, and the ‘evidence’ he received that Hussein possessed an arsenal of ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

 

The transcript is here: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-were-right-to-invade-iraq–john-howard-20130409-2hjst.html (watch the video as well).

 

This speech has effectively re-invigorated the debate about whether or not Australia should have been part of the coalition that went to war in Iraq. As Howard outlines it, this decision was not based on the 9/11 bombings, nor was it based on whether Hussein was involved in these attacks, it was simply because there was a universally held belief that Saddam Huessin had links to Al-Qaeda and that the government possessed ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’.

 

In the greatest case of irony that the world has ever seen, it was in fact the American government that helped to fund the coup that gave Saddam Hussein power in the first place, in an effort to fuck over the USSR during the Cold War.

 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/howard-defends-australias-role-in-allied-invasion-of-iraq-20130409-2hjis.html

 

With Australia primed to have all their troops out of Iraq by 2015, the 10year anniversary of the beginning of the conflict, has raised the issue that in fact, there were no ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and that the continued presence of outside forces in Iraq in the subsequent 10 years, has in reality not actually changed all that much about the social situation of the country, one which still finds itself in a lot of economic and political turmoil and instability.

 

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today, Margaret Swieringa tells how she was the secretary to the Federal Parliamentary Committee from 2002-07, which drafted the report ‘Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction’. Her article is about the real life facts, the situations that she lived through in that role, and her point is that earlier this week, John Howard quoted the findings of this report in his speech, but did so in a manner that was so selective that it could be seen as misleading.

 

Give the article a read, it is a page turner: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-official-advice-on-iraqs-weapons-and-chose-war-20130411-2hogn.html

 

The Chief Editor of The New York Times, recently apologized for the use of their headline “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, back in 2003, for the fear that this caused amongst readers, and for the fact, that at the time, the newspaper had no evidence to support this.

 

I strongly recommend that everyone give Howard’s speech a read, as well as the article written today, and compare them. But do some research into what was actually going on at the time, and make up your own mind about the ever illusive WMD’s.

Should Australian troops still be in Iraq a decade later, or was it all for show? 

Advertisements